I'm Ricardo Maldonado, an independent researcher developing Mutation by Natural Dominance (TMD). I'm raising $25,000 to help evaluate the research methods and, if justified, carry out a carefully scoped first biological pilot with a suitable laboratory partner.

The question behind this work is simple to ask: when one genetic change becomes more common, how can we tell whether it arose more often, helped cells grow or survive, or was simply easier to detect?

My long-term motivation includes cancer prevention. First, I need to establish whether the methods and hypothesis can support a scientifically justified cancer-relevant investigation. The current work is mathematical and computational, with audits of published research data. It has not been biologically validated, tested in cancer cells, or shown to prevent cancer.

Why I am asking for help

I have invested substantial time and personal resources in this project. I currently have no research grant, laboratory, or institutional sponsor. I have made the methods, code, and limitations public so that others can inspect and challenge the work.

What is already available

- Mathematical methods and research software, with computational tests using synthetic examples.

- Audits of published bacterial research and related measurement methods, separating the source authors' experiments from my own analysis.

- Proposed comparisons with established explanations, and documentation of the measurements and controls a credible test would require.

These outputs are groundwork for evaluating the hypothesis. Public repository and archive deposits do not constitute external peer review or biological validation.

The immediate next step

I am seeking feedback on the biological and statistical assumptions and help defining a feasible first test. The proposed first funded allocation is $5,000 for outside assessment of the methods and whether a cancer-relevant investigation is justified. I also welcome volunteer feedback or donated expertise that could help advance this step.

The intended deliverable is a written assessment of the question, competing explanations, required evidence, and next decision: a scoped pilot if justified, further methods work if needed, or a clear explanation of why the proposed direction should not proceed.

How the proposed $25,000 would be used

$5,000 - Outside assessment of the methods: input from cancer biology, genetics, and statistics to assess the assumptions, limitations, and whether a cancer-relevant investigation is justified.

$10,000 - Conditional laboratory pilot: only if the assessment supports it and a suitable partner, agreed protocol, and written scope and price are secured.

$5,000 - Controls, data organization, and independent analysis: the work needed to make any pilot results interpretable.

$3,000 - Reproducible software, documentation, and a public report: including supportive, negative, or inconclusive findings.

$2,000 - Payment-processing fees and contingency: processing costs and unforeseen, documented research expenses.

These are provisional planning allocations. They are not available research funds, laboratory quotes, or signed contracts. Funding must be secured before paid work can begin. The scientific assessment and a suitable study design come before any laboratory pilot.

My commitment to supporters

I will obtain a written scope and price before commissioning experimental work, provide updates on milestones and spending, and report findings that challenge the hypothesis as openly as findings that support it. If a cancer-focused pilot is premature or unsupported, I will explain that finding and any proposed change in the use of unspent funds before redirecting them.

Contributions support research assessment and testing. They do not purchase a treatment or guarantee a medical benefit, and they are not being offered as tax-deductible charitable gifts.

Three ways to help

- Funding: contribute toward the proposed assessment and testing plan.

- Technical collaboration: offer feedback on the methods or suggest a relevant collaborator.

- Sharing: send this page to someone who may be interested in supporting or evaluating the research.

Read the public work

Research overview and current limitations: Research overview

Source repository and later research checkpoints: Source repository

Methods archive 0.6.0, published October 8, 2026: Methods archive

This archive freezes the October 1 methods snapshot. Later GitHub work is separate; the public overview currently reports checkpoint R43 dated October 16.

You do not have to know whether the hypothesis is right to help it receive a fair test. Thank you for reading, sharing, or considering support.

- Ricardo Maldonado